Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes <br /> April 19, 2005 <br /> Page 7 <br /> 1 for the applicant to consider waiving the 60-day rule and reapply. Ms. Moore-Sykes <br /> 2 stated that it is up to the applicant adding that technically, only one reading is required. <br /> 3 She stated that the applicant would not need an extension if they choose to move <br /> 4 forward with one reading and forgo the other two but, if they decide to move forward <br /> 5 with three readings they would need the 60-day waiver. <br /> 6 <br /> 7 Commissioner D. Jensen referenced the text amendment and encouraged the <br /> 8 applicants and Staff to be sensitive when determining the definition. He suggested <br /> 9 giving recognition, in the verbiage, to the accessory rooms, as they do not want any <br /> 10 issues around non-complying uses. He suggested including verbiage within the text to <br /> 11 address the parking concerns. <br /> 12 <br /> 13 Commissioner Young asked if crematoriums have been discussed. Mr. Tyson stated <br /> 14 that crematoriums have not been specifically discussed. He clarified the purpose for <br /> 15 the proposed text change was to get something to the Planning Commission in order to <br /> 16 begin the discussions. He explained that they plan to propose an ordinance that would <br /> 17 be organic enough for both. He assured the Commission that the would continue to <br /> 18 work with the City Attorney and Staff adding that the concept of a crematorium could be <br /> 19 one of the extended uses. He indicated that the national trend has been to try and <br /> 20 bring all services to one location. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 Dennis Cavanaugh, 2909 St. Anthony Boulevard, stated that one of the concerns from <br /> 23 the beginning was signage and operation of a funeral home. He asked the applicants if <br /> 24 they feel they are operating in compliance with City zoning. John Herman stated that <br /> 25 the current funeral activities at the cemetery occur at the Chapel located at the end of <br /> 26 the mall, which is actually located in the City of Minneapolis and is grandfathered under <br /> 27 the Minneapolis zoning code. He stated that this is a permitted legal use in the City of <br /> 28 Minneapolis. He stated that the current Administration Building is not being used for <br /> 29 funerals. <br /> 30 <br /> 31 Mr. Cavanaugh asked what it means by maintaining the ground burials by the entrance <br /> 32 gate. Mr. Tyson clarified that the text refers to their need, during the design process, to <br /> 33 be extremely sensitive to existing cemetery plots located on the property. <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Mr. Cavanaugh asked if they are planning any disinterment and asked the applicant to <br /> 36 provide the Planning Commission with copies of the identified gravesite locations. Mr. <br /> 37 Tyson assured the Commission that they do not plan any disinterment and agreed to <br /> 38 provide copies of the gravesite locations. <br /> 39 <br /> 40 Mr. Cavanaugh clarified that the new footprint would be larger than the existing and <br /> 41 asked if there would be any infringement on current gravesites. Mr. Tyson reviewed the <br /> 42 footprints and assured the Commission that there would be no infringement on any of <br /> 43 the gravesites. <br /> 44 <br /> 45 Mr. Cavanaugh pointed out that the City's consultant stated that the current building is <br /> 46 in good condition. He stated that it does not make sense to remove the building as it is <br />